Fletcher v. Peck was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review in American law. The case involved two land grants issued by the state of Georgia, one to Robert Fletcher and another to John Peck. After selling his grant to an investor group, Fletcher sued Peck for trespass when he attempted to take possession of it. In its ruling, the court held that states could not pass laws impairing contracts or taking away vested rights without due process of law as guaranteed under Article I Section 10 Clause 1 (the Contract Clause) of the U.S Constitution; thus establishing judicial review as a fundamental part of American jurisprudence and protecting individuals from arbitrary action by government entities at all levels. This precedent has been cited numerous times since then in cases involving contract disputes between private parties and governments or their agents

In Fletcher v. Peck, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robert Fletcher and against John Peck. The majority opinion held that a land grant issued by the state of Georgia was valid even though it had been made before Georgia ceded its western lands to the federal government. Justice William Johnson dissented from this ruling, arguing that states do not have authority to make grants on lands they no longer own or control. He argued that such grants are void because they violate both natural law and public policy; furthermore, he contended that if these kinds of contracts were allowed to stand then states would be able to evade their obligations under treaties with other nations as well as those between themselves and Congress. In conclusion, Johnson believed that allowing such contracts would lead to chaos and confusion in our legal system since there is no way for courts or legislatures to determine which laws should take precedence when two conflicting ones exist at once.